Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a critique of the e-mails correlated to the issue with the CCSP trying to strong arm the material to get clearance of acceptance.
This lead to the resignation of Roger A. Pielke Sr. due to the obvious unethical tactics being used. It is only until now that he is able to place the full picture of the exchange after being able to compare the e-mails of the CRU to his correspondence.
You can read the whole thing, but his resignation response real sums up the problem here.
Quote:
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:14:59 +0000From: pielke_r@comcast.net To: james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov, james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov Cc: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors <CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov>; richard.moss@pnl.gov, <richard.moss@pnl.gov>
Subject: Resignation
Dear Dr. Mahoney
I am resigning effective immediately from the CCSP Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. For the reasons briefly summarized in my blog (http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/blog/ (broken link)), I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The NY Times article today was the last straw. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.
Their premature representation of aspects of the report to the media and in a Senate Hearing before we finalized the report has made me realize that, despite the claims of some of them to the contrary, only the minimal representation of the perspective that I represent will be begrudgingly included in the report. I also learned earlier this week that a member of the Committee drafted a replacement chapter to the one that I had been responsible for and worked hard toward reaching a consensus, which was almost complete. This sort of politicking has no place in a community assessment. If such committees are put together with no intention of adequately accommodating minority, but scientifically valid perspectives, then it would be best in the future not to invite such participation on CCSP committees I will be submitting a statement as part of the public record when the report appears documenting the specific process and science issues I have with this report. On the science issues, the community at large can made a decision as to whether or not they have merit.
Respectively
Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Professor and State Climatologist Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1371 phone:970-491-8293/fax:970-491-3314
Yes, a baseless, unsupported opinion that chooses to selectively ignore the context and relevance of their meaning. .
It is what it is, and it is not what you claim it to be. Your desparation is showing. You're twisting every sentence into some kind of 'proof' of a conspiracy, but it's not working.
Like I have already mentioned many times I read them, and I simply don't see them as proof of anything that you claim they are. Sorry, but it's just not there.
It is what it is, and it is not what you claim it to be. Your desparation is showing. You're twisting every sentence into some kind of 'proof' of a conspiracy, but it's not working.
Actually, my mention of the issue keeps being verified over and over again as the time goes on.
I doubt you have even looked in detail at these e-mails, just as I doubt you have even looked into the science past regurgitating administrative claims of superiority.
You never even comment directly on the evidence, but you do seem to have an excuse for anything provided regardless.
There is no desperation here, simply the comfort of evidence slowly suffocating those who are being obtuse and arrogant to its existence.
I wonder that myself. Regardless, his time is running out to save face (personally, I think he has already reached that) and if he carries it to the end, he will simply be labeled stupid or devious. It matters not which one to me, I view them one and the same.
Actually, my mention of the issue keeps being verified over and over again as the time goes on.
I doubt you have even looked in detail at these e-mails, just as I doubt you have even looked into the science past regurgitating administrative claims of superiority.
You never even comment directly on the evidence, but you do seem to have an excuse for anything provided regardless.
There is no desperation here, simply the comfort of evidence slowly suffocating those who are being obtuse and arrogant to its existence.
You sir, are without merit.
Just ignore those who don't want to enlighten themselves and come in from the hoax that has been perpetrated on them. They have been seriously duped and its hard to admit this.
Where did you see a CNN story?
You know they have no intention of reading the files, meaning they will continue to be ignorant regarding the damaging content. Why waste your time?
Just got this response from T. Davies, VC of UEA;
Quote:
Thank you for this email. I hope you understand that I find it difficult to respond
fully at this time, but I have read what you write. I would like to confirm that we are
committed to an independent review which will address the type of issues which you
detail. I cannot put a time-scale on this at the moment, but we intend that it will be as
prompt as possible.
Just ignore those who don't want to enlighten themselves and come in from the hoax that has been perpetrated on them. They have been seriously duped and its hard to admit this.
Where did you see a CNN story?
You know they have no intention of reading the files, meaning they will continue to be ignorant regarding the damaging content. Why waste your time?
It is not a "complete" waste of time. In issues where the facts are less convincining and in question, or if the issue is subjective, I agree, debate continued response might seem.. pointless.
Keep in mind though, a persons own words can solidify their position. That is, the more they speak, the more they commit themselves to the issue. By calling these people out, continuing to let them voice their stupidity, it solidifies their position. That is, there is no way they can back out. They committed and any attempt to wave off and slide into the accepted view becomes impossible. the only way we are ever to truly reduce such attempts of arrogance and ignorance in the future is to be merciless. They must be shown for the joke they are.
This is a critique of the e-mails correlated to the issue with the CCSP trying to strong arm the material to get clearance of acceptance.
This lead to the resignation of Roger A. Pielke Sr. due to the obvious unethical tactics being used. It is only until now that he is able to place the full picture of the exchange after being able to compare the e-mails of the CRU to his correspondence.
You can read the whole thing, but his resignation response real sums up the problem here.
I guess according to old Finn that this letter of resignation is nothing but lies, at least according to one of the worst of the GW supporters. You have to feel sorry for a resident of Florida since he has come to believe that the sea level in Florida will rise so dramatically once GW gets better known by nature, not just the conspirationists of the GW persuasion.
This is stunning; No science just a "gut" feeling.
Quote:
For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
the CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish. ... The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.
The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming.
Perhaps this is why they are so reluctant to release the raw data - they no longer have it. If they don't have it, should ANY credibility be bestowed to the work that they have already done? After all we have read of their behavior and unethical practices, I say no.
Isn't reproducibility one of the key factors in good, honest, ethical scientific method?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
